By your reasoning, Draggie my dear, women should also have the unrestricted right to walk into your home, uninvited, simply because they are women and want to do so. To take your reasoning to its next logical step, men should then be allowed to join "Women Only" gymnasiums and health clubs, or to walk into your home, uninvited simply because that is what they wish and you have no right to say they can't. If you want to use the logic you used here, then you have no right to say that murderers, rapists,, burglars or vandals have no right to enter your home without restriction though your rules that you established for your home say they cannot.

Fortunatey, few men are so damned self-centered and idiotically sensitive as to think of doing such as Ms Burk of the Association of WOMEN'S Organizations demands. Neither could you find very many men who would feel in any way threatened that such female-only facilities exist. Why is it that women believe they are the only ones with the right to have such gender specific facilities and institutions and have that Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association protected while tehy would deny it to males?

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled, rightfully so, that the Boy Scouts of America (and by extrapolation, the Girl Scouts of America, equally) are a private organization and therefore are not subject to government mandate as regards their membership rules. This has angered homosexual activists, atheists and strident feminist harridans, but it is only common sense and simple freedom. It doesn't matter what the Hell these groups want to impose on private organizations for whatever reason. Their desires do not supercede the freedom of teh members of those groups to associate with womever they damned well please. The Court ruled that we still retain the right as citizens to have private institutions and organizations and limit membership to whatever criteria we, as free individuals, determine are appropriate. You have absolutely no logical or intellectual basis upon which to support your statement, Draggie. Must Jews allow Gentiles to be rabbis? Are you saying that the Catholic Church has no right to defrock priests who molest children and parishoners or must ordain non-Christians or non-Catholics? Mustthey ordain women priests, if they believe that is contrarey to their canonical law? Do Wiccans have a right to deny membership to those who wish to destroy Wicca or to declare only a male can be a Grand Warlock? Why would you deny that exact same freedom and right to any other group, no matter how horrific you personally think their membership guidelines to be? If you are not a Jew or a Catholic or a Wiccan, you have no right to demand anything of them in regard to changing their rules, customs, standards or bylaws.

Freedom is a lot like pregnancy. It's impossible to be "a little bit free," just as one cannot be "a little bit pregnant." You either or, or you are not.

I need to correct one part of Bunnyhunny's post, however. The "sponsorships" I spoke of for a golf tournament are for the tournament itself, not for the broadcast coverage of the event. Tournament sponsors pay for the "Leader Boards" (the huge board that lists all the participants and their scores), hospitality suites, special signage, parking concessions, courtesy buses, conveniences located strategically around the course (port-a-johns), etc. They also pay for prizes, special dinners, cocktail parties, receptions and other ancillary events and services, including the actual score cards the golfers use during the tournament. Golfers are provided free use of automobiles during their stay in the host city by auto dealers or manufacturers. Airlines offer special fares to select attendees and participants. Delta has done this since the inception of the Masters Tournament and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Hotels offer special group rates to attendees and golfers often stay for free as part of that sponsorship. These firms gain great advertising and promotional status as the "Official (airline, automobile, hotel, etc.) of the Masters Golf Tournament" or as a "Masters Golf Tournament Sponsor." There is a real commercial monetary value to such designations and firms aggressively bid for the right to such participations.

As for the commercial sponsorship of the telecast coverage of the event, it is as a I have said, though I doubt that you would ever be told of this by the politically correct idiots at CBS. Any long standing sponsor of the telecast who was foolish enough to withdraw their advertising support would be immediately replaced by one of the hundreds of major advertisers who have been waiting in line for such an opportunity to have their product or service placed in a medium that will deliver their specific target market comprised of the exact demographics and pyschographics they hope to be able to address with their marketing messages. So, you will still get television commercials, but this year the Leader Board and Tee-Box markers, the course maps given to attendees, the hospitality tents and all the other accoutrements of a major PGA Golf Championship Tournament will be lacking any sponsorship identification this year.

Knowing the pride of the membership of Augusta National Golf Club, those things will still be there, but they are protest proof now and may be for a long time to come.

By the way, Draggie, are you equally as adamant about the seventeen private golf courses whose memberships are limited solely to females and who do not allow any male to ever even play their courses? In case you missed the information, women are permitted to play the Augusta course, if their families are members. Women are not prohibited from playing, only from holding membership in their own names. At the females-only courses that exist, male family members do not have the same right on those courses. Do you, as I do, support the rights of those women to impose such rules? If you do, why don't you support them for the members of Augusta National's club?

So long as we are to be a free people, we must maintain the right of private organizations to make rules regarding who they wish to admit to membership. To my way of thinking, only a crude, ill-mannered, malicious and petty human being would ever attempt to deny free people that right to associate with whomever they please. Yes, women should be treated equally, but that equality is only "under the law" and does not extend beyond specific government-related areas. There is absolutely no government (public) intrusion here and those who complain about that freedom have far too much time on their hands and lack a basic understanding of what freedom is all about. They ought to be expending that energy where they have some legal right to do so and may make a meaningful contribution to equality where it counts. The New York Times and Martha Burk are way off base, and - sadly - with your comments, so are you. As always, we support your right to say what you believe here. Howeverm we also support the rights of others to disagree with your position as I just have. No one, however, has a right to attack you here personally for holding those beliefs. My disagreement with your post is simply that... disagreement with your reasoning in this specific matter. Friends can, and frequently do, disagree here without being disagreeable. I don't support your opinion, but I sure support your right to have it. So do all the other regulars here. I especially thank you for your courage in stating your beliefs here. So do they.